The Attitude of the Authorities of the People's Republic Of

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Attitude of the Authorities of the People's Republic Of Borèe Ilievski ISSN 0353-295X (Tisak) ISSN 1849-0344 (Online) UDK 261.8(497.7)“195”(091) Radovi - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest original scientific paper Vol. 46, Zagreb 2014 [email protected] DOI: 10.17234/RadoviZHP.46.12 The Attitude of the Authorities of the People’s Republic of Macedonia Toward the Roman Catholic Church in the 1950s The following is the results of the research into the relations between the authorities of the People’s Republic of Macedonia and the Roman Catholic Church, or more specifi cally the Diocese of Skopje, from 1945 to 1960. For almost a decade there were no talks or contacts with the Bishop of Skopje, Dr. Smiljan Čekada, whom the Commission for Religious Affairs of the People’s Republic of Macedonia regarded as “a reactionary person and an opponent of the constitutional order”. According to the analyses made at the Federal Commission for Religious Affairs, Bishop Čekada’s primary objective was to promote union with the Roman Catholic Church among Orthodox Christians in Macedonia. The fear of the local and federal authorities that the idea of union with the Roman Catholic Church may spread in Macedonia had a lot to do with the unresolved status of the Orthodox Church in Macedonia and led to the deportation of two Catholic priests, one of whom was the archpriest of the Eastern Rite Catholics in Macedonia. The deportation aggravated further relations between the authorities and the Diocese of Skopje and gave rise to growing distrust of Bishop Smiljan Čekada. Introduction In Yugoslavia, in the fi rst decade of the establishment of the government of KPJ/ SKJ (Communist Party of Yugoslavia/League of Communists of Yugoslavia), the Soviet ideological model was applied toward religion and religious communities. Relying on the Soviet Marxist understanding of the role of religion in society, the new authorities sought to restrict religious infl uence by closely controlling the activities of the religious communities.1 However, unlike the Orthodox Church that the government took control of fairly soon,2 the Roman Catholic Church proved a 1 BOECKH 2006: 403. 2 The Serbian Orthodox Church came out of World War II devastated in terms of material wealth and clergy and the measures that the authorities carried out after 1945 weakened it even more. The authorities exerted infl uence on the church through certain bishops willing to cooperate. In 1950, Patriarch Vikentij was appointed with direct help from the Federal Commission for Religious Affairs. The infl uence of the secular authorities was even more obvious in the appo- intment of Patriarch German in 1958 (RADIĆ 2009: 24-33). 401 RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 46, 2014. str. 401-419 much stronger opponent of the offi cial ideology and social system. Financially more independent than the Serbian Orthodox Church and run by educated and seasoned clergy, the Roman Catholic Church refused to remain on the margins of society.3 In the People’s Republic of Macedonia, the attitude of the state authorities to- ward religion and religious institutions differed in quality from the other republics largely because of the specifi c status of the Orthodox Church. Since the early 1920s, based on the agreement reached between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, it was the Serbian Patriarchate that had had jurisdiction over the part of Macedonia that fell under the Kingdom of Serbia after the Balkan Wars and under the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes after World War I. After the collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1941, the parts of Vardar Macedonia where Bulgarian administration was established fell under the eccle- siastical jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.4 The holy synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church reacted to the new ecclesiastical situation in a fairly swift manner.5 By the end of April 1941, there was a short project on the new ecclesiastical establishment in the areas under the dominance of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The parishes were also reorganized.6 In the western parts of Vardar Macedonia that fell under Italian power, ecclesiastical jurisdiction was established by the Albanian Orthodox Church. The status of the Orthodox Church in Macedonia was brought to the spotlight as early as during World War II taking into consideration that the church issue in Macedonia was an integral part of the resolution of the Macedonian national issue.7 3 RADIĆ 2008: 653. 4 СТОЯНОВА 1999: 263. 5 ХАДЖИЙСКИ 2001: 73-74. 6 ЕЛДЪРОВ 1997: 117-136; ТЕРЗИОСКИ 1965: 48. 7 Upon Macedonia’s liberation toward the end of 1944, the Serbian bishops that had been expelled by the Bulgarian authorities in 1941 sought permission from the authorities to return to the eparchies in Macedonia—Josif (Cvijović) to Skopje and Vikentij (Prodanov) to Štip. The new authorities of Macedonia and Yugoslavia did not let them return for they regarded the church dignitaries as advocates of Serbian nationalism and chauvinism (they believed this to be especi- ally true of Metropolitan Josif of Skopje). In March 1945, a church and people’s assembly was held, at which, in the attendance of about 300 priests and believers, a decision was passed to renew the Ohrid Archbishopric, that is to say, to form an autocephalous Macedonian Orthodox Church. However, this decision was revised in 1946 primarily because the position of the state authorities to the Macedonian church issue had changed and they started to see the appeals for autocephaly as an act of separatism by hostile priests. In May 1946, a priests’ assembly was held in Skopje at which, after an exhaustive discussion, which refl ected the differing views of the clergy on the status of the Orthodox Church in Macedonia, a resolution was passed that called for appointing Macedonians as bishops in the Macedonian eparchies and for using the Macedo- nian language in the church administration. (The State Archives of the Republic of Macedonia (hereafter DARM) 159.12.74.509-517; РАДИЋ 2002а: 277-297; ИЛИЕВСКИ 2011: 40-105). 402 Borèe Ilievski - The Attitude of the Authorities of the People’s Republic of Macedonia... In 1943, the main headquarters of the People’s Liberation Army of Macedonia included a so-called religious offi cer, who issued instructions to the priesthood;8 the delegates of ASNOM (The Antifascist Assembly of the People’s Liberation of Macedonia) included several priests as well. A substantial part of the priesthood was actively involved in the resistance movement. After the liberation, a part of them would become heads of the movement for the declaring of the independency of the Macedonian Orthod ox Church.9 The unresolved status of the Orthodox Church in Macedonia was one of the reasons for the bad relations between the authorities of the People’s Republic of Macedonia and the Roman Catholic Church. The Macedonian Commission for Religious Affairs feared that the Roman Catholic Church would take advantage of the unresolved church issue to promote the idea of union with the Holy See, which caused growing distrust of the Bishop of the Skopje Diocese and his activities. The interest of the authorities of the People’s Republic of Macedonia in Bishop Smiljan Čekada’s activities grew keener in the early 1950s. From 1946 to 1951, following the death of Bishop Jozo Garić of Banja Luka, the Holy See entrusted the Bishop Čekada of Skopje with the task of administering the Diocese of Banja Luka, too, as a result of which he was often out of Macedonia. In 1950, Serbian Patriarch Gavril, the staunch opponent of making any changes to the administration of the Macedonian eparchies, passed away. The authorities in Belgrade and Skopje believed that with the election of the new Patriarch Vikentij favorable conditions were created for fast resolution of the Macedonian church issue, that is to say, for appointing Macedonian bishops in the eparchies of the People’s Republic of Macedonia. Time went on yet the Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox Church diplomatically turned down the lists of candidates for bishops arriving from Macedonia. The unresolved status of the Orthodox Church of the People’s Republic of Macedonia and the more intense activities of the Roman Catholic Church and particularly its bishop, who was able to focus entirely on the Skopje Diocese since the early 1950s, was the reason why the Commission for Religious Affairs of the People’s Republic of Macedonia started “analyzing” more frequently Bishop Smiljan Čekada’s activities. When in 1958, at a church and people’s assembly in Ohrid, the Ohrid Arch- bishopric was renewed as the Macedonian Orthodox Church (the Macedonian Orthodox Church remained in canonic unity with the Serbian Orthodox Church through their shared head), the authorities believed that the Macedonian church issue was closed. As a result, the activities of the Skopje bishop became less rel- evant considering “the danger of union with Rome has passed”. 8 АСНОМ – Документи од Првото и Второто заседание 1984: 537-539. 9 ПРЕЗИДИУМ на АСНОМ 1994: 38. 403 RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 46, 2014. str. 401-419 At the time the interest in the church issue was rekindled, prior to the declara- tion of the autocephalous status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in 1967, Dr. Smiljan Čekada fi lled the offi ce of Coadjutor Archbishop of Vrhbosna and therefore the Macedonian authorities were not much concerned with his activities. This article seeks to shed light on the attitude of the authorities of the People’s Republic of Macedonia toward the Roman Catholic Church, Bishop Čekada in particular, in the 1950s, the key decade of the 20th century when the Macedonian authorities focused on resolving the Macedonian church issue. Resistance to Bishop Čekada and Caution against the Spread of Eastern Rite Catholicism The territory of the People’s Republic of Macedonia was part of the Diocese of Skopje, which also included Kosovo, Metohija and Sandžak.
Recommended publications
  • Draft Assessment Report: Skopje, North Macedonia
    Highlights of the draft Assessment report for Skopje, North Macedonia General highlights about the informal/illegal constructions in North Macedonia The Republic of North Macedonia belongs to the European continent, located at the heart of the Balkan Peninsula. It has approx. 2.1 million inhabitants and are of 25.713 km2. Skopje is the capital city, with 506,926 inhabitants (according to 2002 count). The country consists of 80 local self-government units (municipalities) and the city of Skopje as special form of local self-government unit. The City of Skopje consists of 10 municipalities, as follows: 1. Municipality of Aerodrom, 2. Municipality of Butel, 3. Municipality of Gazi Baba, 4. Municipality of Gorche Petrov, 5. Municipality of Karpos, 6. Municipality of Kisela Voda, 7. Municipality of Saraj, 8. Municipality of Centar, 9. Municipality of Chair and 10. Municipality of Shuto Orizari. During the transition period, the Republic of North Macedonia faced challenges in different sectors. The urban development is one of the sectors that was directly affected from the informal/illegally constructed buildings. According to statistical data, in 2019 there was a registration of 886 illegally built objects. Most of these objects (98.4 %) are built on private land. Considering the challenge for the urban development of the country, in 2011 the Government proposed, and the Parliament adopted a Law on the treatment of unlawful constructions. This Law introduced a legalization process. Institutions in charge for implementation of the legalization procedure are the municipalities in the City of Skopje (depending on the territory where the object is constructed) and the Ministry of Transport and Communication.
    [Show full text]
  • Zagreb for Me
    Smart City – Good Practice Public Services and Infrastructures, Land Use Zagreb for Me Zagreb, Croatia Revitalization of Zagreb's public spaces using public participation as a tool “Zagreb for Me” is an ambitious and comprehensive project launched in 2015 by the Zagreb Society of Architects in cooperation with the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Zagreb and the City of Zagreb. The goal of the project is to start a revitalization of public spaces through the realization of 17 urban interventions in the whole city area at the same time. This distributed approach will improve the general “image of the city” and raise the quality of urban life in segments of housing, recreation, leisure and social cohesion [1]. Although Zagreb has some significant historical parks and squares in its centre, as well as a few recreational zones, the rest of the city has plenty of neglected open spaces that have no specific function. This project aims to decentralize designed public spaces and draw attention to some forgotten city spots. At the same time, the project, created from a “bottom-up” initiative, establishes a new model of public participation as well as new forms of collaboration. Country/ City Profile Country City Population (2013) 4.236 million [6] Population (2013) 790,000 (federal district) [9] Land area (km²) 56,590 [7] Land area (km²) 641 [10] GDP per capita (2014, 21,210 [8] GDP per capita (2011, 18,200 current international $, at US$) purchasing power parity) Region Middle / Region Inland Southeast Europe City’s physical Location Bordered by Medvednica mountain and the Sava river (flooding risk, urban heat) geography Relatively low altitude (~125m) Climate Oceanic continental climate near the humid continental climate (average temperature: 12.9 C°) with relatively warm summers (average summer temperature: 26°) and relatively cold winters Precipitation generally moderate throughout the year (average 880 mm/year) Initiating context The project, “Zagreb for Me”, arose from the “bottom-up” project called City Acupuncture.
    [Show full text]
  • FEEFHS Journal Volume VII No. 1-2 1999
    FEEFHS Quarterly A Journal of Central & Bast European Genealogical Studies FEEFHS Quarterly Volume 7, nos. 1-2 FEEFHS Quarterly Who, What and Why is FEEFHS? Tue Federation of East European Family History Societies Editor: Thomas K. Ecllund. [email protected] (FEEFHS) was founded in June 1992 by a small dedicated group Managing Editor: Joseph B. Everett. [email protected] of American and Canadian genealogists with diverse ethnic, reli- Contributing Editors: Shon Edwards gious, and national backgrounds. By the end of that year, eleven Daniel Schlyter societies bad accepted its concept as founding members. Each year Emily Schulz since then FEEFHS has doubled in size. FEEFHS nows represents nearly two hundred organizations as members from twenty-four FEEFHS Executive Council: states, five Canadian provinces, and fourteen countries. lt contin- 1998-1999 FEEFHS officers: ues to grow. President: John D. Movius, c/o FEEFHS (address listed below). About half of these are genealogy societies, others are multi-pur- [email protected] pose societies, surname associations, book or periodical publish- 1st Vice-president: Duncan Gardiner, C.G., 12961 Lake Ave., ers, archives, libraries, family history centers, on-line services, in- Lakewood, OH 44107-1533. [email protected] stitutions, e-mail genealogy list-servers, heraldry societies, and 2nd Vice-president: Laura Hanowski, c/o Saskatchewan Genealogi- other ethnic, religious, and national groups. FEEFHS includes or- cal Society, P.0. Box 1894, Regina, SK, Canada S4P 3EI ganizations representing all East or Central European groups that [email protected] have existing genealogy societies in North America and a growing 3rd Vice-president: Blanche Krbechek, 2041 Orkla Drive, group of worldwide organizations and individual members, from Minneapolis, MN 55427-3429.
    [Show full text]
  • Nikola Tesla
    Nikola Tesla Nikola Tesla Tesla c. 1896 10 July 1856 Born Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia) 7 January 1943 (aged 86) Died New York City, United States Nikola Tesla Museum, Belgrade, Resting place Serbia Austrian (1856–1891) Citizenship American (1891–1943) Graz University of Technology Education (dropped out) ‹ The template below (Infobox engineering career) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. › Engineering career Electrical engineering, Discipline Mechanical engineering Alternating current Projects high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments [show] Significant design o [show] Awards o Signature Nikola Tesla (/ˈtɛslə/;[2] Serbo-Croatian: [nǐkola têsla]; Cyrillic: Никола Тесла;[a] 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-American[4][5][6] inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and futurist who is best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.[7] Born and raised in the Austrian Empire, Tesla studied engineering and physics in the 1870s without receiving a degree, and gained practical experience in the early 1880s working in telephony and at Continental Edison in the new electric power industry. He emigrated in 1884 to the United States, where he became a naturalized citizen. He worked for a short time at the Edison Machine Works in New York City before he struck out on his own. With the help of partners to finance and market his ideas, Tesla set up laboratories and companies in New York to develop a range of electrical and mechanical devices. His alternating current (AC) induction motor and related polyphase AC patents, licensed by Westinghouse Electric in 1888, earned him a considerable amount of money and became the cornerstone of the polyphase system which that company eventually marketed.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribute to a Genius: the Electrifying Legacy of Nikola Tesla Cleveland Plain Dealer May 17, 2006
    Tribute to a Genius: The electrifying legacy of Nikola Tesla Cleveland Plain Dealer May 17, 2006 With preparations under way to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Nikola Tesla's birth, members of the Serbian-American community are heartened that their Balkan countryman is gaining widespread recognition as one of the greatest pioneers in the history of electrical science. On June 4, a tribute to Tesla will be held at St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Parma. Organized by Paul Cosic, a Serbian-American businessman, the event is open to the public and includes a memorial service, followed by a banquet at 1 p.m. The keynote speaker will be Professor Jasmina Vujic, the chair of the department of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. Tesla, the son of a Serbian Orthodox priest, was born July 10, 1856, in what is now the Republic of Croatia. A physicist, mechanical engineer and electrical engineer, Tesla migrated to the United States in 1884 at age 28. Over the next six decades, he was responsible for numerous inventions relating to radio devices, electrical transmission and electrical motors. Tesla held dozens of basic U.S. patents for his poly-phase alternating current (AC) system of generators, motors and transformers, which eventually supplanted Thomas Edison's direct current (DC) system. Along with his impact on modern technology, Tesla also was an influence on generations of aspiring engineers, particularly in his homeland. "From an early age, he was kind of my hero," says the Serbian-born Vujic, who is the first woman to lead a nuclear engineering program at a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • GO BEYOND the DESTINATION on Our Adventure Trips, Our Guides Ensure You Make the Most of Each Destination
    ADVENTURES GO BEYOND THE DESTINATION On our adventure trips, our guides ensure you make the most of each destination. You’ll find hidden bars, explore cobbled lanes, and eat the most delectable meals. Join an adventure, tick off the famous wonders and discover Europe’s best-kept secrets! Discover more Travel Styles and learn about creating your own adventure with the new 2018 Europe brochure. Order one today at busabout.com @RACHAEL22_ ULTIMATE BALKAN ADVENTURE SPLIT - SPLIT 15 DAYS CROATIA Mostar SARAJEVO SERBIA ROMANIA SPLIT BELGRADE (START) BOSNIA Dubrovnik MONTENEGRO Nis BULGARIA KOTOR SKOPJE Budva MACEDONIA OHRID ITALY TIRANA ALBANIA Gjirokaster THESSALONIKI GREECE METEORA Delphi Thermopylae Overnight Stays ATHENS NEED TO KNOW INCLUSIONS • Your fantastic Busabout crew • 14 nights’ accommodation • 14 breakfasts • All coach transport @MISSLEA.LEA • Transfer to Budva • Orientation walks of Thessaloniki, Tirana, Gjirokaster, Nis and Split • Entry into two monasteries in Meteora The Balkans is the wildest part of Europe to travel in. You’ll be enthralled by the cobbled • Local guide in Mostar castle lanes, satiated by strange exotic cuisine, and pushed to your party limits in its • Local guide in Delphi, plus site and offbeat capitals. Go beyond the must-sees and venture off the beaten track! museum entrance FREE TIME Chill out or join an optional activity • 'Game of Thrones' walking tour in Dubrovnik DAY 5 | KALAMBAKA (METEORA) - THERMOPYLAE - ATHENS • Sunset at the fortress in Kotor HIGHLIGHTS We will visit two of the unique monasteries perched • Traditional Montenegrin restaurant dinner • Scale the Old Town walls of Dubrovnik high on top of incredible rocky formations of Meteora! • Bar hopping in Kotor • Breathtaking views of Meteora monasteries After taking in the extraordinary sights we visit the • Traditional Greek cuisine dinner • Be immersed in the unique culture of Sarajevo Spartan Monument in Thermopylae on our way to • Walking tour in Athens • Plus all bolded highlights in the itinerary Athens.
    [Show full text]
  • TRACE Case Studies Agenda
    ESMAP KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE FORUM WITH BILATERAL AGENCIES AFD, PARIS, NOVEMBER 27-28, 2012 IVAN JAQUES TRACE Case Studies Agenda WHERE HAS TRACE BEEN DEPLOYED? HOW IS TRACE HELPING IDENTIFY KEY SECTORS AND ACTIONS? WHAT ARE THE KEY ISSUES? WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT? TRACE AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY: - Europe and Central Asia: Sustainable Cities Initiative - East Asia and Pacific: Sustainable Energy and Emissions Planning (SUEEP) - Latin America and the Caribbean: Rio Low Carbon Development Program - Africa: Urban Energy Efficiency Development in Sub-Saharan Africa 2 TRACE DEPLOYMENT 3 TRACE deployment Completed In progress 4 5 HOW IS TRACE HELPING IDENTIFY KEY SECTORS AND ACTIONS? EXAMPLES IN ECA 6 Urban Transport Source: ECA Sustainable Cities Initiative Urban Transport Many cities in ECA are faced with widespread deterioration of existent public transport infrastructure and dramatic increase in number of private vehicles Trips in Public Transport in Macedonia Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia, 2011 …Tbilisi (Georgia) completely lost its tram network Source: ECA Sustainable Cities Initiative Urban Transport Often, existent public transport infrastructure is old and energy inefficient Public Transport Energy Consumption in Tbilisi Source: ECA Sustainable Cities. 2011. Improving Energy Efficiency in Tbilisi: TRACE Study Source: ECA Sustainable Cities Initiative Urban Transport City streets and sidewalks are increasingly chocked up with private cars Congestion in Tbilisi On-sidewalk Parking in Skopje Source:
    [Show full text]
  • Skopje Tram-Bus Project
    Skopje Tram-Bus Project Non-Technical Summary July 2020 1 Table of Contents 1. Background ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of the Project ......................................................................................................... 1 Project Timeline and Stages ................................................................................................. 4 2. Key Environmental, Health & Safety and Social Findings ........................................ 4 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 4 Project Benefits and Impacts ................................................................................................. 5 Project Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 5 Project Impacts and Risks ..................................................................................................... 5 3. How will Stakeholders be Engaged in the Project? .................................................. 7 What is the Stakeholder Engagement Plan? ......................................................................... 7 Who are the Key Stakeholders? ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial of the Republic of Croatia
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (CROATIA v. YUGOSLAVIA) MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA APPENDICES VOLUME 5 1 MARCH 2001 II III Contents Page Appendix 1 Chronology of Events, 1980-2000 1 Appendix 2 Video Tape Transcript 37 Appendix 3 Hate Speech: The Stimulation of Serbian Discontent and Eventual Incitement to Commit Genocide 45 Appendix 4 Testimonies of the Actors (Books and Memoirs) 73 4.1 Veljko Kadijević: “As I see the disintegration – An Army without a State” 4.2 Stipe Mesić: “How Yugoslavia was Brought Down” 4.3 Borisav Jović: “Last Days of the SFRY (Excerpts from a Diary)” Appendix 5a Serb Paramilitary Groups Active in Croatia (1991-95) 119 5b The “21st Volunteer Commando Task Force” of the “RSK Army” 129 Appendix 6 Prison Camps 141 Appendix 7 Damage to Cultural Monuments on Croatian Territory 163 Appendix 8 Personal Continuity, 1991-2001 363 IV APPENDIX 1 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS1 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE CHRONOLOGY BH Bosnia and Herzegovina CSCE Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe CK SKJ Centralni komitet Saveza komunista Jugoslavije (Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia) EC European Community EU European Union FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia HDZ Hrvatska demokratska zajednica (Croatian Democratic Union) HV Hrvatska vojska (Croatian Army) IMF International Monetary Fund JNA Jugoslavenska narodna armija (Yugoslav People’s Army) NAM Non-Aligned Movement NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
    [Show full text]
  • Twelfth Meeting of Senior Government Officials of Countries in South-Eastern Europe Page 1
    South-eastern Europe Health Network Health Development Action for South-eastern Europe Twelfth Meeting of Senior Government Officials of Countries in South-eastern Europe Report on a Joint Council of Europe/WHO meeting Skopje, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 24–26 November 2005 Address requests about publications of the WHO Regional Office for Europe to: Publications WHO Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Alternatively, complete an online request form for documentation, health information, or for permission to quote or translate, on the WHO/Europe web site at http://www.euro.who.int/pubrequest. © World Health Organization 2006 All rights reserved. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Where the designation “country or area” appears in the headings of tables, it covers countries, territories, cities, or areas. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bri in Europe and the Budapest-Belgrade Railway Link
    Briefing Paper, 10/2019 THE BRI IN EUROPE AND THE BUDAPEST-BELGRADE RAILWAY LINK Flora Rencz Junior Researcher, EIAS October 2019 Abstract Increasing Chinese influence in Europe has been a growing source of anxiety in Brussels in recent years. This paper seeks to better understand these exacerbated fears through the case of the Budapest-Belgrade railway link refurbishment. The project is part of the 17+1 Cooperation and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It had been announced in 2013 but was stalled on the Hungarian side until 2019 due to EU tender regulations. This paper provides an overview of the Budapest-Belgrade case’s timeline and details. It also analyses the challenges arising during the execution of the project, particularly focusing on political concerns from Brussels, feasibility issues, and the reception of the refurbishment by the Hungarian public. The paper also sheds light on how the project progressed differently on the Hungarian side as it did on the Serbian side as a non-EU member, due to the EU’s intervention. The railway link is a great case study to gain a better understanding of the BRI and the implications of China’s growing influence as a global actor for the EU and its neighbours. Briefing papers published by the European Institute for Asian Studies are summaries of facts which are related to a certain issue and often include a proposed course of action. This paper expresses the views of the author(s) and not of the European Institute for Asian Studies Introduction In November 2013, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dačić, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced plans to modernise the railway link between Budapest and Belgrade.1 The project was retrospectively labelled part of China’s multilateral cooperation with the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, the so-called 17+1 Cooperation (since Greece joined in 2019),2 hence making it a Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project.
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Treasures of Croatia
    Inland treasures of Croatia Full of inspiration Don’t fill your life with days, fill your days with life. photos by zoran jelača Discover your story at croatia.hr CroatiaInland Treasures KOPAčKI RIT | 4-7 VUKOVAR | 8-11 FROM ILOK TO VUKOVAR | 12-15 EASTERN CROATIA | 16-19 PAPUK | 20-23 POŽEGA | 24-27 LONJSKO POLJE | 28-31 MOSLAVAČKA GORA | 32-33 MEĐIMURJE | 34-37 CYCLING TOURISM | 38-41 VARAŽDIN | 42-45 CASTLES OF ZAGORJE | 46-49 HEALTH TOURISM | 50-51 MEDVEDNICA | 52-55 ZAGREB | 56-59 KARLOVAC | 60-63 AQUATIKA | 64-67 GORSKI KOTAR | 68-71 VIA ADRIATICA | 72-75 Over UčKA MOUNTAIN | 76-77 ISTRIA BY BIKE | 78-81 THE UNA RIVER | 82-83 LIKA | 84-87 VELEBIT | 89-93 THE ZRMANJA AND THE KruPA | 94-95 SINJ | 96-99 IMOTSKI | 100-103 NeretvA RIVER PARADISE | 104-107 LIST OF REPRESENTATIVE OffICES | 108 2 Introduction Croatia hides a secret. A secret that deserves to be revealed. Hidden in the obvious and ready for you. If you really think you deserve a vacation other than the sea or skiing, we suggest that after the daily stresses, the rush and the constant commitment, you finally decide to replace the stone and the sea, the holm oaks and the pines with the shade of Slavonian oak, the ash, the thick forest arch of Gorski Kotar, the greenery of Međimurje... Head, therefore, to that part of our country which is within our reach, green and flat or hilly and golden in its summer or autumn colors, and yet mostly distant and unknown to the most.
    [Show full text]